3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
9 people marked this as a favorite.

Is there any time frame on Paizo releasing an epic level handbook? My campaign will soon be eclipsing the level 20 mark. I may just have to adjust and alter the feats, class and item rules from the 3.0 D&D book if not, which would be quite an annoyance as opposed to shelling out some cash for another well designed Paizo book... *hint* *hint*...

I'll post here and wherever this request pops up - I'd love an official epic level rule set for Pathfinder. I'd buy a hardcover devoted to it or just use rules that appear in a future adventure path.

It continues to boggle my mind that so many players would spend so much of their time arguing against the existence of official epic level rules. Don't buy the book. Don't allow the rules in your game. But please let the rest of us enjoy them.

Most companies are not as inclusive and responsive to their patrons as Paizo, which is why my brand loyalty is so high, so don't take this as a rejection of discussion of the pros and cons of future products. I just don't quite understand the anti-epic movement. It's a very large and passionate one - and it makes me nervous that it could roadblock this important (if optional) rules expansion.

Kaymanklynman's comment sparked the idea that a Level 21+ book could be cool IF it it focused on the idea of mythic roleplaying rather than just the classic epic of "bigger/harder/stronger."

Way way back in the the day the Gold Box of AD&D did this by incorporating rules for immortality, and as many people saw it, they weren't so much just new level advancements, but a whole new game of playing as a legend in your own time. The rules as written don't help you account for managing whole governments. I'd like to see a book of subsystems that let you be the ruler of a nation or seen as a messiah in a religion, maybe even gain immortality. 3.5 had some rules that could be adapted with the divine rank for instance. As for being a king of a nation, though you could say "that's all up to role playing" I'd still like to see some mechanics in place to help it.

I'll post here and wherever this request pops up - I'd love an official epic level rule set for Pathfinder. I'd buy a hardcover devoted to it or just use rules that appear in a future adventure path.

It continues to boggle my mind that so many players would spend so much of their time arguing against the existence of official epic level rules. Don't buy the book. Don't allow the rules in your game. But please let the rest of us enjoy them.

Most companies are not as inclusive and responsive to their patrons as Paizo, which is why my brand loyalty is so high, so don't take this as a rejection of discussion of the pros and cons of future products. I just don't quite understand the anti-epic movement. It's a very large and passionate one - and it makes me nervous that it could roadblock this important (if optional) rules expansion.

1. Epic rules means epic support - modules, AP, sourcebooks. It's not just "one book I won't buy", it's an entire line that doesn't jazz me...

2. ...but which will tie up Paizo's resources away from things I enjoy.

3. No, I don't care about what others enjoy. Capitalism doesn't work like that.

Kaymanklynman's comment sparked the idea that a Level 21+ book could be cool IF it it focused on the idea of mythic roleplaying rather than just the classic epic of "bigger/harder/stronger."

Way way back in the the day the Gold Box of AD&D did this by incorporating rules for immortality, and as many people saw it, they weren't so much just new level advancements, but a whole new game of playing as a legend in your own time. The rules as written don't help you account for managing whole governments. I'd like to see a book of subsystems that let you be the ruler of a nation or seen as a messiah in a religion, maybe even gain immortality. 3.5 had some rules that could be adapted with the divine rank for instance. As for being a king of a nation, though you could say "that's all up to role playing" I'd still like to see some mechanics in place to help it.

thanks for the support , but i must say that the name mythic it is not my idea , i think it was James Jacobs the first to propose this name if paizo one day create this book .

I'll post here and wherever this request pops up - I'd love an official epic level rule set for Pathfinder. I'd buy a hardcover devoted to it or just use rules that appear in a future adventure path.

It continues to boggle my mind that so many players would spend so much of their time arguing against the existence of official epic level rules. Don't buy the book. Don't allow the rules in your game. But please let the rest of us enjoy them.

Most companies are not as inclusive and responsive to their patrons as Paizo, which is why my brand loyalty is so high, so don't take this as a rejection of discussion of the pros and cons of future products. I just don't quite understand the anti-epic movement. It's a very large and passionate one - and it makes me nervous that it could roadblock this important (if optional) rules expansion.

1. Epic rules means epic support - modules, AP, sourcebooks. It's not just "one book I won't buy", it's an entire line that doesn't jazz me...

2. ...but which will tie up Paizo's resources away from things I enjoy.

3. No, I don't care about what others enjoy. Capitalism doesn't work like that.

Epic rules means epic support - modules, AP, sourcebooks. It's not just "one book I won't buy", it's an entire line that doesn't jazz me...

2. ...but which will tie up Paizo's resources away from things I enjoy.

3. No, I don't care about what others enjoy. Capitalism doesn't work like that.

And capitalism which you appear to be defeindg means PAIZO SHOULD make it if there is enough support for it. They probalby have metrics for whether there is enough interest to make a profit on it (including opportunity cost of not doing something else). In the past they have indicated it is something they would like to do in the future, myself and many others hope they do.

As for your other resources, not every resource they do is supported by everyone. Many people like their adventure paths, I personally do not, yet I realize they are a valuable part of their business model so I do not ask them to stop making them and cater to what I want. As you said Caitalism does not work that way.

If they make an Epic rulebook and IF it makes enough of a profit there may be support for it, if there is NOT enough of a profit, support will likely not be coming. Again basic business in the captitalistc market.

I hope they will determine it is in their best interests to do an Epic Rule book (or as JJ has said is more likley 21-36). And I hope they do it for the proper Capitalistic reasons... that it will make a profit.

I think many of the people that are solidly in the pro-epic-rules camp are forgetting one simple fact when they say “you’re taking away our fun” or “our ideas can’t hurt your game”: all ideas do not hold equal merit. Before the flamethrowers come out, I’m not saying that wanting Epic-level content does not have merit or has less merit than not wanting it.

However, some game ideas, despite their appeal to some, introduce a detrimental effect to others. For example, if someone started posting things like this with the intent of the suggestions actually making their way into a product, I think most of those posting in this thread might object. (And yes, they’re intentionally ridiculous to make a point.)

1. “I want sparkly vampires and the majority of them aren’t evil, just misunderstood. And an emo-point mechanic should be added to the game and PFS play.”

2. “Somatic spell casting should require the caster to wiggle her nose, cross her arms and blink, or should be limited to human females. Oh, and synergistic magic should only be accessible to sisters in pairings of three.”

3. “PC character death should be impossible unless both the player & GM agree that the character dies for story reasons and/or the player has become bored with the character.”

4. “Conditions such as shaken, sickened, and fatigued only apply to NPCs and never apply to PCs.”

5. “PF Core, APs, and PFS should adopt epic point-buy as the standard method of character creation.”

6. “PCs are supposed to be tough. NPC attacks should never be successful against PCs. It reduces my fun when my character gets beat up.”

If someone says “no thanks” to any of those ideas, it’s not a personal attack on the person making the suggestion or an attempt to spoil their fun. It’s an expression of what they don’t want in their game.

If every “want” for the game is to be treated with equal merit, we’re going to end up with an inconsistent hodge-podge.

As for epic rules, chances are good that the pro-epic-rules camp is going to get what they want…at some point. For those of us who don’t want it, we’re not trying to deprive you of anything. But we’re not talking about house rules or a 3PP product. We’re talking about official RPG rules, probably a bestiary, and probably some number of adventures. We might be talking about an incremental impact to the setting. (How great an impact remains to be seen.) Some of us don’t want that. And since we’re customers of Paizo also, why aren’t we allowed to tell them what we do want, just like you’re doing?

Also, there’s a lot more precedent for epic-level content impacting other products and the setting than for it being a self-contained product. APG, UM, UC – all have seen elements introduced into modules, APs, campaign setting sourcebooks, and PFS play. Portions of those products exist solely b/c they will support those other products. Given how problematic epic-level content has been at times, both mechanically & thematically, some of us just don’t want it.

I’ve been down the road of “just ignore it if you don’t like it” with settings like Forgotten Realms, Scarred Lands, & Iron Kingdoms. However, there are elements that “can’t be undone” without effectively reaching a “nothing after this sourcebook” solution. As a subscriber to multiple Pathfinder and Golarion products, that’s NOT an attractive option to me. I don’t recycle campaigns, settings, and game systems every 12-18 mos. Once taking out the elements I don't like reachs 30-50% of a supplement, I have to start asking myself is that remaining 70-50% of content I will use is worth the price of the product in total. It often isn't.

So let’s stop acting as though “don’t want it, don’t buy it”, “you’re ruining my fun”, and “it won’t impact your campaign” are superior arguments when most of us are just saying “Dear Paizo, this is what we’d like & this is what we’re not crazy about/have little use for.” Otherwise, the glib “go play a system that already has epic-content like D&D (3e, 4e) or Exalted” becomes as valid as it is trite.

No, if epic rules will come, they will HAVE to come with support. You can't do a toe-dip at this level without making sure that folks can buy a 50 USD hardcover with full safety of having material for that. Already there are voices of critique against publishing Gunslingers/gun rules that have a marginal place in the supported campaign setting.

It continues to boggle my mind that so many players would spend so much of their time arguing against the existence of official epic level rules. Don't buy the book. Don't allow the rules in your game. But please let the rest of us enjoy them.

The reason is opportunity cost. It's got nothing to do with you.

.
I'm not asking Paizo not to make epic rules, I'm asking them to make something else. The corollary of that happens to be that they won't make epic rules, but that doesnt have anything to do with my motivation.

If the system fundamentally begins to break down between 12th and 15th level already, what on earth makes the thought of 20+ levels important to get to right away? This is more curiosity on my part than anything else. My groups don't get to 20th level, so epic levels mean nothing to me one way or the other.

If the system fundamentally begins to break down between 12th and 15th level already, what on earth makes the thought of 20+ levels important to get to right away? This is more curiosity on my part than anything else. My groups don't get to 20th level, so epic levels mean nothing to me one way or the other.

Respectfully not everyone accepts that as a fact.

And even were there a consensus there's been no effort to isolate the cause and to try and correct it.

I do hear a lot of voices saying it can't be fixed, but the explanation for why not is fairly circular. I.e. "it can't be fixed because it can't be fixed.". Or, lower levels don't play like high levels- as if they should.

I haven't seen the system break down. Even if one round of combat takes an hour to go around the table, that is when the game is most fun. Lower levels is too limited with what you can do. The real fun, the endless options and power lies near and beyond level 20.

And capitalism which you appear to be defeindg means PAIZO SHOULD make it if there is enough support for it. They probalby have metrics for whether there is enough interest to make a profit on it (including opportunity cost of not doing something else). In the past they have indicated it is something they would like to do in the future, myself and many others hope they do.

I seem to remember the use of metrics in things like this was confirmed, but the form taken by those metrics wasn't clarified. I believe the last time I saw mention of them with regard to this topic, the profit potential of epic rules, and the support for those rules, wasn't nearly high enough to warrant their development. If I'm remembering correctly, though, that was some time ago. Many things could have changed in the time since.

An example of such change is Pathfinder Online, which was also something that we were told was not financially possible only a few years ago. If something as big as an MMO can shift to such a degree, it's entirely possible that epic rules could as well.

And epic levels are already in Golarion. Look at the list of spellcasters in Inner Sea Magic (pp. 5-7). There are 6 spellcasters who are over L 20 (including 1 missing and 1 imprisoned), plus 5 who are over L 20 and "presumed dead", plus Baba Yaga. There are also at least 6 spellcasters who are at L 17-20, and which a GM might want to bump up a few levels so as to use him/her as a foe for a group of particularly high-level/effective characters. And that's just the spellcasters. Who knows how many non-spellcasters there are at those levels?

While I don't have any Dragon Empires supplements yet, I understand that there are also some L 20+ NPCs there too.

No, if epic rules will come, they will HAVE to come with support. You can't do a toe-dip at this level without making sure that folks can buy a 50 USD hardcover with full safety of having material for that. Already there are voices of critique against publishing Gunslingers/gun rules that have a marginal place in the supported campaign setting.

The publication of a Mythic Rules book doesn't mean a 50 dollar hardcover, something that would almost guarantee that I'd not purchase it.

One of the problems of the old Epic Level Handbook was that much of it was filler quality of little use and worse balance. The book should be a smaller, more tightly focused book something that suits the niche market that one would have to acknowledge that this work will be.

If the system fundamentally begins to break down between 12th and 15th level already, what on earth makes the thought of 20+ levels important to get to right away? This is more curiosity on my part than anything else. My groups don't get to 20th level, so epic levels mean nothing to me one way or the other.

Respectfully not everyone accepts that as a fact.

And even were there a consensus there's been no effort to isolate the cause and to try and correct it.

I do hear a lot of voices saying it can't be fixed, but the explanation for why not is fairly circular. I.e. "it can't be fixed because it can't be fixed.". Or, lower levels don't play like high levels- as if they should.

Understood, sir. It's something I hear all the time is all. My group has hit 15th level in the SS campaign I'm running. Thus far, in mine own experiences of these levels things haven't been too bad. I'm learning quickly that if you don't have multiple enemies there's virtually no challenge to the encounter. I've got an alchemist in the game that pretty much cleans house with everything they come across with his touch attacks and ability to hit damage potential of about 160 hp per round. Unless I throw them up against 5-6 baddies in a fight, virtually no one else gets to play (he's also got the best initiative modifier in the crew). This has been the only real issue I've noticed about higher levels, however. The rest of the characters still find these levels challenging when I can isolate the alchemist in some way, if not somewhat confusing with all the options they have! (Please note that we've only been playing PF for about 17 months, and this is our first foray into the upper levels.)

Another question I have: Why can't you continue past 20th level with the rules as they are? Every class is established to 20th, plus you've got numerous Prestige classes out there. Why couldn't a character who's reached 20th level in fighter start taking levels in barbarian, or rogue if he wants more versatility, or Prestige Classes like duelist or what-have-you? The scores are there to just stack onto existing ones, plus feat progression is simple, and so forth. This seems like it should be a viable option for those who wish to continue adventuring beyond the 20th level of experience.

I haven't seen the system break down. Even if one round of combat takes an hour to go around the table, that is when the game is most fun. Lower levels is too limited with what you can do. The real fun, the endless options and power lies near and beyond level 20.

Wow, really? The game is MOST FUN to you when you spend an HOUR between each 6-second interval of game-time? You and me have vastly VASTLY different conceptions of fun. If I can go to sleep from boredom waiting for it to be my turn again...NOT FUN.

Now, see Kthulhu, you just conflated 'an hour per round' as automatically putting you 'to sleep from boredom'.

If the entire group is involved in everyone's turn and not just their own (which they usually are when they have a multitude of options to affect the battle on more than just their own turn) then they won't be going to sleep. They'll be discussing interactions and strategies as the battlefield evolves turn by turn.

I get that you don't enjoy long battles. Some people do. If your battles were long but non-stop excitement, you might not mind the length either.

Understood, sir. It's something I hear all the time is all. My group has hit 15th level in the SS campaign I'm running. Thus far, in mine own experiences of these levels things haven't been too bad. I'm learning quickly that if you don't have multiple enemies there's virtually no challenge to the encounter. I've got an alchemist in the game that pretty much cleans house with everything they come across with his touch attacks and ability to hit damage potential of about 160 hp per round. Unless I throw them up against 5-6 baddies in a fight, virtually no one else gets to play (he's also got the best initiative modifier in the crew). This has been the only real issue I've noticed about higher levels, however. The rest of the characters still find these levels challenging when I can isolate the alchemist in some way, if not somewhat confusing with all the options they have! (Please note that we've only been playing PF for about 17 months, and this is our first foray into the upper levels.)

Hmmm. That's pretty interesting. I'd be curious what his build is like, but I'm not assuming anything is wrong with it.

I was recently talking to a colleague who offered this advice: 'Never send in the BBEG alone. Always give her/him a little back-up. Reduces the cases of one-shot drastically, even if the minion is not very powerful.'

Sub-Creator wrote:

Another question I have: Why can't you continue past 20th level with the rules as they are? Every class is established to 20th, plus you've got numerous Prestige classes out there. Why couldn't a character who's reached 20th level in fighter start taking levels in barbarian,...

Honestly I have no good answer to it. It's a reasonable comment. :D

This is what I'm finding (and this is not necessarily you Sub-creator, but reading your response made me think of this): there is a presumption that the desire for mythic rules is based upon a desire to continue to play past level 20. An unwillingness to stop playing a character.

But I'm almost exclusively a GM. My 'characters' aren't intended to last the fight typically. How does that position or issue pertain to me? It doesn't. I'm interested in the different kinds of stories you can tell, without abandoning mechanics.

And I'm not picking on you personally, I actually really appreciate your post. :)

But the "You must be afraid to let go of your character" argument is a generalization. Not everyone who wants mythic rules is suffering from separation anxiety.

*****************

Though I might start to become invested in the debate, and for that reason I may step away. I fear getting pulled in a heated exchange with anyone.

If the entire group is involved in everyone's turn and not just their own (which they usually are when they have a multitude of options to affect the battle on more than just their own turn) then they won't be going to sleep. They'll be discussing interactions and strategies as the battlefield evolves turn by turn.

To be honest, taking more than a couple of minutes for your turn, and letting other players be actively involved in your decisions on what to do is the highest level of metagaming.

A round is six seconds. It's not enough time for a long internal debate about what to do (as symbolized by a long debate out-of-character). You should know what you're going to do when the initiative falls to you, and announce it. At best, the most "debate" another character should really be able to contribute is "NO!!".

Strategies should be determined BEFORE battle. If you're playing with me as the GM, and three minutes goes by without you having determined what action you're taking, I would rule your character paralyzed by indecision and skipped over until the next round.

Harsh? Maybe, but it keeps the game moving, and that's an important element in keeping the game fun, as opposed to being a rather tedious grindfest. At least in my no-so-humble opinion.

As usual count me in as someone who wants to see a sourcebook an epic level rules. Both 3.5 and 4E allow Epic level play why not Pathfinder. No one has to buy or use the rules if they don't want to. It's also imo better for Paizo to offer more options then less. More options usually means more money in their pockets.

As usual count me in as someone who wants to see a sourcebook an epic level rules. Both 3.5 and 4E allow Epic level play why not Pathfinder. No one has to buy or use the rules if they don't want to. It's also imo better for Paizo to offer more options then less. More options usually means more money in their pockets.

Yeah, but lack of support for "Epic" tier (as well as the fact that it's just more bigger numbers) is one of recurring criticisms aimed at 4E.

A round is six seconds. It's not enough time for a long internal debate about what to do (as symbolized by a long debate out-of-character). You should know what you're going to do when the initiative falls to you, and announce it. At best, the most "debate" another character should really be able to contribute is "NO!!".

Not even what I was speaking on. Your character will be adjusting his strategy as the battle evolves. And the resolution of high level powers takes much longer than simple attack rolls, especially when other players add their own abilities, buffs and immediate actions both. The DM will have to take time to make his rulings on open ended powers like illusions and creative uses of defined powers. That is what I mean by all the players being involved in each turn.

Gorbacz I get what you are saying. Yet 4E and 3.5 allow Epic play. Not saying it's perfect by any means yet if I want to play an Epic game with those two games I can. I also have faith that Paizo can do a better job with their Mythic rules. There is a demand for it imo. Its like when poster were asking for variant races which lead to the creation of the Advanced Races guide. Might as well offer more options than people can ignore or use as they see fit.

Level 12+ DnD 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder gaming doesn't totally break down. It slows down. Combats take longer, yes. The math gets more difficult and complex, yes. Its like Vampire the Masquerade in the sense that smaller, resource-chewing combats should fall by the wayside and bigger, story driven, meaningful combats should be the norm because you're only going to get through one or two fights in a session.

My group regularly finishes campaigns at levels 17 - 19. We just finished Age of Worms at 22nd level by using the 'epic-lite' rules from the Core Rule Book. My whole group will absolutely fork over cash for anything intended for not only levels 21+, but levels 17+ also.

The challenge for Paizo should not be viewed as 'should we produce level 21+-based rules', but instead the company should be asking itself 'how can we create a ruleset that draws in people who DON'T want level 21+ rules because of reasons x,y and z?'

Those who already know that they want level 21+ rules are going to buy what Paizo produces; it's a foregone conclusion. The real challenges are to a) create a ruleset that makes people who didn't even think they would want to game at levels 21+ suddenly want to do that exact thing and b) create rules that developers (both internal to Paizo and 3rd party) can use to quickly generate new content so that support does not rest entirely on the shoulders of Paizo.

To do what I mentioned above is probably going to mean losing the little tag on Paizo's level 21+ products that says 'compatible with the world's oldest roleplaying game'. But ok, the people concerned about their level 21+ game being compatible with DnD 3.5 should probably be using the 3.0 ELH anyway...

I've yet to see a game even get to 20th, seen quite a few get close though. Ending around 17-18th level. I think part of the reason we end games there is there isn't much left to go for once you get 9th levels, 4 attacks and all the feats you want, and such. The cap stone is useless as you hit 20th and maybe use it once then the game would be over.

I think something for 20th level and on even if just 5 levels would be great.

If the system fundamentally begins to break down between 12th and 15th level already, what on earth makes the thought of 20+ levels important to get to right away? This is more curiosity on my part than anything else. My groups don't get to 20th level, so epic levels mean nothing to me one way or the other.

I've never found the game breaking down at those levels. I find the game changes and gets harder to GM as it requires a lot more planning. If that planning is done the game doesn't break down at all.

I was recently looking at the basic math of combat, which at it's core is 1d20 + BAB vs AC. Spoiler for math discussion.

Spoiler:

We have 3 levels of BAB advancement +1, +.75, and +.5. Disregarding modifiers (of which there are many and will skew these numbers wildly), the best combats usually involve the +1 BAB classes needing an 11 or better to hit. For example, if you have a 12th level fighter who gets +12/+7 (still no modifiers) and the bad guy has an AC of 23, the fighter hits 50% of the time with his first attack and 25% of the time with his 2nd. The 12th level rogue hits 35% with his first attack and 10% with the 2nd. The 12th level wizard hits 20% with his first and 5% (because a 20 always hits) with his second. The interesting part is that at 20th level the fighter has picked up 2 more attacks, but is still at 50%/25%/5%/5%. The rogue has dropped to 25%/5%/5%, and the wizard is at 5%/5% (although if the wizard is swinging at this point something has gone terribly wrong).

So the important thing that I learned from this is that everything needs to be in a 20 pt range to make this work properly, but that range can move, as long as we can keep all of the classes in it. Even if the fighter has a +40/+35/+30/+25 (any more iterative attacks then that is pointless, because we are dealing with a modifier of 20 or more) the AC range we are dealing with is 41 to 60, anything higher then that can only be hit with a 20 and anything lower can only be missed on a 1. However, if we continue advancement to this point for a rogue the AC range is 31 to 50. so with say an AC of 50 the fighter hits 55% of the time and the rogue hits 5% of the time. And if we give the bad guy an AC of 41 the rogue hits 50% of the time and the fighter hits 95% of the time.

So based on that I would think that we would need to continue the base level math used in the ELH, where all of the classes go to the same progression from some point forward. Otherwise the 3/4 BAB's leave combat at some point.

Well the more I look at this the more I realize where the math issue is. By 20th level you have already skewed the range to the point where either the +.5 classes can't hit, or the +1 classes can't miss. (the first one is really fine since what the hell is the wizard doing trying to stab someone at this point.) However as you go forward, between BAB, magic modifiers, and ability score increases, you start to have the same issue with the +.75 classes. Which says to me feats that give attack bonuses, weapons with more than a +5 bonus, and items that give you more then +6 to a stat probably need to go. Time to start looking at damage output.

But as for what status it is at, who knows. I spoke with both James Jacobs and Jason Bulmahn at GenCon last year. JJ was still very much in support of Mythic level play and Jason indicated he has some very good ideas on how he thinks they would want to handle it. Both said they realize many players would like to see 20+ play and talk of it comes up often enough in the office. However, neither could give even a tentative date on a release, or even guarantee it is coming out.

But again, this was last August, who knows what is happening now. I am guessing if we hear anything about a Mythic book (if we ever hear anything at all), the earliest would be at Paizo Con.

It's almost certainly going to have a cap (36 seems the most commonly cited number) based on comments by Paizo people (James Jacobs, in particular, although it's presumedly not really in his realm).

Of course, if you put a cap on it, I give it a maximum of 6 months before the whining begins that you can't be TRULY epic unless you're level 37+.

Alternately, if you do NOT put a cap on it, then you begin to wonder why pitiful puny CR 25-35 creatures (demon lords, archdevils, the four horsemen, etc) are considered movers and shakers in the multiverse.

Of course, if you put a cap on it, I give it a maximum of 6 months before the whining begins that you can't be TRULY epic unless you're level 37+

But that, in of itself, is not actually a reason not to do it. There will always be people who are unhappy with something. You can't design or develop in the hopes to make everyone happy, because people are so different in their desires and expectations.

All you can do is explain your goals and the reasons behind your decisions, put out the best product you can, and hope people agree with those goals and choices.

If you put love in your product, most people will enjoy it and appreciate it.

I guess my point is, there's already a perfectly good endpoint in the existing game...level 20.

There are people who think you NEED to have level 21+.
There are people who think you NEED to have level 37+.
There are people who think you NEED to have level 100+.

Why is 36 any more valid of an level cap than 20, or 2000 ?

I can't answer specifically why its better. Personally, I don't know if it is better. I think very few people can answer that right now.

Nevertheless, there are types of stories that cannot be effectively told with the existing rule system. That is a reason to go beyond level 20th.

The next step is establishing some goals concerning what you want GMs and Players to be able to do with those rules. You should also consider what you're not designing the rules to do. Those decisions will help inform what level cap you want.

Once you understand what your goals are, you can start to make decisions about the CR or Difficulty level of the challenges, and that will also inform what the level cap should be.

So, to answer your question succinctly: the valid level cap will be determined by what the 'goals' are for the rules- or simply put, why kind of game you can play with them.

But you have illustrated the need for some planning and decisions before any actual rules are written!!!